LAW-REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1615, 5 December 1912, Page 3

LAW-REPORTS.

~ . COMPENSATION: CASE, (Before Sir Robert Stout, C.J., and two Assessors.) CITY COUNCIL SUED FOR £380COURT AWARDS .£ll7. Street-widening operations in connection with the Wadestown tramway gave rise to a claim for compensation, which was heard yesterday. The Compensation Court set up to deal with the action comprised the Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout) and two assessors, Messrs. A. L. Wilson and L. H. B. Wilson. The claimants wero David Taylor and Lydia Thompson Taylor, of Wadestown, and the respondents irere the Wellington City Corporation. Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for' the claimants. The City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) appeared for the Corporation. . By proclamation by the Governor dated August 17, 1911, 5.-11 perches of land belonging to the plaintiffs and situate at the junction of Pitt Street and Maiu Road, Wadestown, were taken by the Wellington City Corporation for street-widen-ing and tramway construction. It was alleged that, in consequence of the taking of the land, the remaining holding had been injuriously affected in that the residence -thereon had been deprived of its rear access. The letting value had been decreased because of.the diminished garden space, the fact that the north-eastern side of the residence was brought near to the Main. Road, and the fact of the proximity of the tramway to the residence. It was also alleged that during the time the work was being carried out the residence could not be let, and that there occurred a general dislocation of plaintiffs' business. Plaintiffs claimed .£3BO as compensation for all loss arising out of the taking of the land. This amount w&s made up as follows:—s.4l perches of land .£200; trap-shed thereon .£SO; general dislocation of business arising from the loss of the use of the trap-shed, .£l7;'loss of rear access to the residence ,£SO; decrease in letting value thereof, .£SO; loss of rent thereof during execution of work, m. An offer of by the corporation had •been declined. In answer to the claim the Wellington City Corporation set forth that the value of the property had been enhanced by the widening of the street, and the erection of a first-class concrete wall. It was also stated that the trap-shed was a mere patch-work and that David Taylor had stated that he "did not want a rear access." Fifty pounds it was contended would be ample compensation. After hearing ( evidence the Court adjourned to view the locality. The case was resumed at 3 p.m. and his Honour announced, that- claimants would be awarded .£ll7. Each party .would pay. its own costs and its own assessor. Tho assessors'- fees were . fixed at. 5 guineas. each, •• , '■[■■ ■'•■ ' TAPAPA LAND. CASE BETWEEN ■ TWO -FARMERS. A claim for specific performance of an agreement to purchase land was settled in the Supreme, Court' yesterday by a reserved decision delivered by the Chief Jus.tice (Sir Robert Stout). The plaintiff in the. action was John Meikle, farmer, of Tβ Aroha, and the defendant was Sills John Gibbons, farmer, of Wellington. At tho hearing, Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for Meikle, while Sir John Findlay, K.C., with Mr. D. M. Findlay, appeared for Gibbons.' In the statement of claim it was set out that Meiklo was the owner of 712 acres of land in the Tapapa Survey District, Auckland. On April 19, 1912, Gibbons entered into an agreement to buy the property at £9 15s. per acre, delivery to be taken in August last. Gibbons subsequently refused to complete the purchase, though Meikle was willing to transfer to him in terms i of : the agreement. M-sikle now asked that Gibbons' should ba ordered to specifically perform tho agreement, and to pay the amount required to complete tho purchase, together with interest , thereon. Meiklo also claimed damages in respect of the delay that had taken place. By way of defence, Gibbons said that the agreement was made subject to a formal transfer and mortgage being drawn, and this condition had not been fulfilled. The transfer that had been submitted contained a covenant that the transferor should not be liable for any part of the costs of erecting or maintaining dividing fences between the land in question and the adjoining land of tho Bank of ' New Zealand. This fencing covenant was (it was contended) an unusual .term in the transfer. Further, Gibbons submitted, that Meikle had vio-' lated one of the conditions of the agreement by overstocking the land between the date of the agreement and the date, when Gibbons should take possession. ; Gibbons counter-claimed tor the sum of £100 damages,-and for tho return of his deposit of .£2OO. :.. . His Honour held that on account of tho fencing covenant, Gibbons was entitled to rescind. Judgment was accordingly given for the defendant (Gibbons) on the claim, with cost? and judgment also for . Gibbons oh the counter-claim for .£2OO without costs. ~ OIL RIGHTS & SHARES.. CASE RE THE KOTTJKU FIELD. An originating summons that had.been issued to obtain a declaratory judgment in regard to certain oil-boring right*, came before Mr. J ustice. Sim in the Supreme Court yesterday morning. The plaintiff was Frederick Cassin, land agent, of Hastings, and' the defendants were the Kotuku Oil Fields Syndicate, Ltd. ■ ' ,' . . .-•,'■ . Mr.. A. W. Blair appeared for plaintiff, Cassin, while Mr. M. Hannan, of Greymouth, with him Mr. T. H. G. Lloyd, of Dannevirke, appeared for the defendant syndicate. . From particulars set out in the summons, it appeared that an agreement between Cassin and the syndicate (re oilboring rights) provided in Clause 5 that, if a company were formed to work any of the oil properties, Cassin should be entitled to five thousand £1 snares in a capital of .£IOO,OOO. One of the rights disposed of- by Cassin to the syndicate was acquired from Thomas M'Neil, on condition that the right should lapse if a company were, not formed to work it by December; 10, 1912. . The syndicate itself, commenced boring operations on Jl'Neil's property on August 28, and the question then arose as to what was Cassin's position.; Cassin contended that by the transfer of this right he was assured of 5000 shares in a company, which he contended had to be formed. - On the other hand the, defendant syndicate contended that by concluding an arrangement with M'Neil for the variation of his agreement, it could avoid the formation of a company, and work the property' itself. . After hearing counsel, his Honour reserved decision. ,